From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 79188 invoked by alias); 9 May 2016 15:16:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 79173 invoked by uid 89); 9 May 2016 15:16:24 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?No, score=0.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=15th, We, We=e2, guideline?= X-HELO: etr-usa.com Received: from etr-usa.com (HELO etr-usa.com) (130.94.180.135) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 09 May 2016 15:16:14 +0000 Received: (qmail 38123 invoked by uid 13447); 9 May 2016 15:16:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO polypore.west.etr-usa.com) ([73.26.17.49]) (envelope-sender ) by 130.94.180.135 (qmail-ldap-1.03) with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 9 May 2016 15:16:13 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) Subject: Re: cmp missing from base From: Warren Young In-Reply-To: <572D891C.2040002@towo.net> Date: Mon, 09 May 2016 15:16:00 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <741009F0-E57D-44DA-B728-68BDB4486DDD@etr-usa.com> References: <572C697E.1090408@towo.net> <29250DCF-60A0-4113-9834-25EA744E8F41@etr-usa.com> <572D891C.2040002@towo.net> To: The Cygwin Mailing List X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-05/txt/msg00087.txt.bz2 On May 7, 2016, at 12:20 AM, Thomas Wolff wrote: >=20 > Am 07.05.2016 um 03:41 schrieb Warren Young: >> On May 6, 2016, at 3:53 AM, Thomas Wolff wrote: >>> after a recent fresh installation of cygwin, I was surprised that `cmp`= was missing, which is part of the traditional Unix base commands. >>> I think the diffutils package should be part of the base installation. >> We=E2=80=99ve never really had a hard rule on what is in Base and what i= sn=E2=80=99t. It=E2=80=99s always been a judgement call. >>=20 >> I wonder if the rule should just be =E2=80=9CPOSIX=E2=80=9D? Over the weekend, I realized that the rule can=E2=80=99t be that simple, be= cause that would drag in GCC. > maybe there can be a guideline, and more a guideline of common practice t= han of a 15th standard. The problem, of course, is that there is no common practice. I think the closest parallel to the Cygwin Base philosophy is the minimal o= r base installs of several other *ixes, particularly the BSDs. It is also = something like a throwback to the SysV Unixes, prior to about 1992, when yo= u could count on things like X and the C compiler to be separate installs. But even that guideline isn=E2=80=99t especially useful, since often such O= Ses *do* include the C compiler and all its support tooling. Ultimately, I think Cygwin Base is whatever Corinna and Yaakov say it is. :) -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple